Knight13: <Humans still make moves that computers don't see.> Then see Indochess Man vs Machine (2005). If human were making moves that computer didn't see then why the computers just crushed the humans?

Whitehat1963: <Knight13>, could it be due to the fact that only one of the humans was rated above 2600 -- ironically, the one who performed worst of all in the tournament? I'm not saying that computers will not routinely defeat even the best players soon. No, that's inevitable because of the rate at which computers get faster and faster, and their algorithms improve. Ten years from now, neither Kasparov, nor any of the big guns, will even be able to draw with a computer if the computer holds the white pieces. And the best they will be able to do is draw when the computer plays black. But for now, I think the top five or 10 players in the world can at least compete somewhat evenly with the best programs. But that collection of players in the Indochess Man vs Machine (2005) tournament, were far from the best players available to defend human pride.

Whitehat1963: On the other hand, I think someone should organize a simul exhibition between the top computer programs and the top humans -- but in Fischer Random Chess. Let's see how the computers perform when their extensive opening books get thrown out the window! Maybe they'll still whip the humans, but I think not. If they did, then it's definitely over for man-machine matches.

sandyobrien: in my opinion, a program is not better than a human until it cannot be beaten a human.

my resoning is this: if the difference between computers and humans is that computers always preform at top-shape because they do not experience fatigue and other psychological things that affect humans. then if it is truely better, it should never be beaten by a human at top shape.

however, even the best computers are beaten at times by humans, therefor i think it's fair to say that humans are currently better.

inhalaattori: <Whitehat1963> Nice article written by Kurzweil you have there. It says:
"The Deep Fritz computer chess software only achieved a draw in its recent chess tournament with Vladimir Kramnik because it has available only about 1.3% as much brute force computation as the earlier Deep Blue's specialized hardware. Despite that, it plays chess at about the same level because of its superior pattern recognition-based pruning algorithm."
That's a huge difference in brute speed! If we forget the hardware differences and somehow managed to run Deep Fritz on Deep Blue's hardware, I would predict it would easily beat every human in existence hands down!

csmath: <<If we forget the hardware differences and somehow managed to run Deep Fritz on Deep Blue's hardware, I would predict it would easily beat every human in existence hands down!>>

Correct. As a matter of fact I believe that 4x852 Opteron running Deep Shredder 9 or Deep Junior 9 would be superior to any top level player today in a match. But if you would use cluster processing or a supercomputer there is no doubt in my mind that any human chess player would be pulverized.

PekpekAdik: hello everybody! i need help. should i buy a Junior 9 or Deep Junior 9? i've read that Deep Junior is for multiprocessor pc. for sure Deep Junior 9 plays stronger than Junior 9. would i get Deep Junior's full capability & maximum playing strength with my computer's single processor (it's an intel centrino processor)? any helpful response is greatly appreciated.

somitra: <Whitehat1963>:
Thanks for the nice article you provided. However, I dont agree with some of the ideas presented in that article. Specifically, when the author talks about Neural nets. I am from academics and have done some research on neural nets and know their limitations very well. Infact, in 1980s and upto the beginning of 1990s the neural nets were considered good tools for pattern recognition, but since about middle of 90s they have lost their position. The author of the article is apparently not aware of the state of the art in machine learning methods. Researchers also know now that this type of pattern recognition abilities are difficult to be generated by looking at the position, so they have gone solely towards "evaluation functions". I.e. given a position they look up at possible plans and the resulting positions, then they give a score for the line being considered. My humble opinion is that this is going to remain the future of comp chess for times to come, unless somebody dramatically changes the world of comp chess.

Albertan: I just read online that a new version of Deep Junior is going to be released this summer:Deep Junior 11. It will be interesting to see if the program can cause Deep Rybka 3 any problems! Here is the link to the announcement:
http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2008/...

mrandersson: Still a great engine I use deep 10 and its still my favorite engine for style ideas and analysis. It might not be as good as the clones but you can understand some of its ideas a bit more i feel.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.